Open Theology 2016; 2: 303–323 Open Access Slobodan Stamatović* The Meaning of Perichoresis DOI 10.1515/opth-2016-0026 Received December 12, 2015; accepted February 24, 2016 Abstract: Perichoresis is an old theological concept that is eliciting great interest today, but nevertheless it is felt there is still not enough clarity about the very meaning of the word, especially about the semantic connection between the verb περιχωρέω and the noun περιχώρησις. The main goal of this paper is to shed light precisely on this semantic ground of the notion, and for this purpose we have investigated the meaning of the verb περιχωρέω showing that there is a good reason for lexicographic division of περιχωρέω into two separate verbs. Applying the findings of our philological research, we have also expounded the original patristic conception of perichoresis which, in some important aspects, has appeared to differ from the approaches dominant in Western theology from the Middle Ages to our own day. Keywords: perichoresis, inexistence, permeation, penetration, John of Damascus, Gregory of Nazianzus Introduction With the increasing interest in perichoresis that is now occurring not only among theologians, but also among philosophers,1 it seems that we have reached the point when there is a need for a greater clarity about the exact meaning of that Greek word: περιχώρησις. For despite this great interest in our time we are still vacillating in what we see as its real etymology and original meaning.2 We know now that perichoresis as a theological terminus technicus originally appeared in the late Patristics (7th and 8th century) and that it irretrievably entered the theological endeavour through the influential work of John Damascene (†750 AD), De fide orthodoxa (On the Orthodox Faith). Being, as it were, the concluding word of Patristics, this is a work of the utmost importance in which he faithfully expounded the syntheses of the Church Fathers’ theology, crowning himself thereby with the title of a Church Father and becoming their chief spokesman not only in the East, but also in the West, where the translation of this book into Latin began early. Namely, after several partial translations, it had eventually been completely translated in 12th century by Burgundio of Pisa, who forged for perichoresis the Latin word circumincessio, frequently used later on in the form of circuminsessio. Both of these words were previously unknown in Latin and it seems that the terms - expecially the former - were not easy to understand, even for the Latins. In this paper we will attempt to determine the original content of that notion, and this will require tracking down its linguistic origin and, to a certain extent, its interesting path through the history of theology.3 1 For an interesting approach, relevant both for philosophy and theology, see de Libera, Archeologie Du Sujet, Tome 1. 2 This paper is a developed version of a lecture given on 4 April 2014 at the symposium VIIIth Mediterranean Roots of Philosophy (Split, Croatia). 3 As the main conclusions of this paper are based on careful reading of the classical texts, it seemed to me appropriate to give my own translations from Greek and Latin – hence the absence of references to the translations. *Corresponding author: Slobodan Stamatović, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Croatia, E-mail: [email protected] © 2016 Slobodan Stamatović, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. 304 S. Stamatović Perichoresis in Its General Theological Usage Today According to the most common theological interpretation of perichoresis, it is an important notion of the Trinitarian theology which expresses the mutual indwelling and containment among the persons of the Holy Trinity – their presence in each other, in which each contains the other. Once upon a time, the term inexistence was regarded as proper English equivalent for perichoresis,4 and we will soon see the reasons why. This term is now avoided because it is commonly used in the sense of nonexistence, but originally it comes from the Latin inexistentia, with the meaning of “being existent in something.” The terms inherence and immanence are closely related to this meaning, which can give us the hints for the philosophical relevance of the concept of perichoresis. But we must leave these aspects for another occasion as perichoresis is nowadays known primarily as a theological term. One of the influential modern introductions to theology, trying to succinctly present this idea with some good sense, explains the concept of perichoresis in the following way: The basic notion is that all three persons of the Trinity mutually share in the life of the others, so that none is isolated or detached from the actions of the others.5 As we can see, perichoresis is today generally used for the explanation of the relationship within the Holy Trinity, and since it applies to a relationship, it means that it starts not from the one to the three, but from the three to the one. Therefore, it doesn’t mean to explain how the one is the three, but how the three is the one: how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are – by the reason of perichoresis – one God. The main scriptural quotation usually referred to in this connection is that from John’s Gospel where Jesus said: I am in the Father and the Father in me. (John 14:11) It is just in this Jesus’ expression of the mutual inexistence of the Father and the Son where the proponents of the divine nature of Logos – i.e. of the Christ in which the Logos was incarnated – found the justification before those who were fervently accusing them for introducing ditheism. For if we say for the Christ or for the Logos that he is, as the Son of God, also God, we introduce two Gods: the Father and the Son. But we find that already Irenaeus fights back against this, affirming that the Son “is in the Father and has the Father in Himself.”6 Based on this and some similar quotes, some believe that Irenaeus was already familiar with perichoresis.7 However, Greek has better possibilities for expressing this idea, namely by ἐνουσία or ἐνύπαρξις, which can also be expressed in Latin with number of terms, such as immanentia and inexistentia for example. So, why do we have in Greek περιχώρησις, and in Latin such complicated and previously non-existent words as circumincessio and circuminsessio? Can it really be faithfully rendered into English as inexistence, as once was preferred, and why they considered that word as a good term for expressing the concept of perichoresis? The reasons for this lie in the fact that such interpretation of perichoresis, under the name circumincessio, and especially when it occurs in the form of circuminsessio, has been prevalent in the Western theology since Medieval times, beginning with the Sentences of Peter Lombard.8 4 This term was in usage already in 17th century. We can quote as an example: “... there is a mutual inexistence of one in all, and all in one...” This was uttered by Isaac Barrow in his Defense of the Blessed Trinity, a sermon preached on Trinity Sunday, 1663. See in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 39. 5 McGrath, Christian Theology, 469. 6 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III 6.2: “Per Filium itaque, qui est in Patre, et habet in se Patrem, is qui est, manifestatus est Deus” (italics mine). The same view is expressed also in III 11.5-6 where he supported his thought with the verse of John’s gospel: Filius qui est in sinu Patris (Joh 1:18 [Vul]). But similar statements can be found even before Irenaeus. See for example Tatian (Oratio ad Graecos, chapter 5) or Athenagoras (Legatio pro Christianis 10.2-4). 7 This was stated in Pavić and Tenšek, Patrologija, 94. 8 It is interesting that Peter Lombard in fact ignored this Burgundio’s term, maybe because it was not quite clear to him, but nevertheless, his approach to the perichoretic union of the Holy Trinity is a typical example of reducing perichoresis to inexistence. For his perspective, see Petrus Lombardus, Sententiarum libri, I 19.5 (Quomodo dicitur esse Deus Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre...). The Meaning of Perichoresis 305 Thomas Aquinas does not use either of the terms, and it is quite possible that he intentionally avoids them, being conscious that not everything is absolutely clear about them; however, it is obvious that he is familiar with its theological content. Thus, in one place in his Summa, where he considers the liturgical practice of repeating three times Kyrie eleison to the Father, three times Christe eleison to the Son, and then again three times Kyrie eleison to the Holy Spirit, he remarks that this is done “against the triple misery of ignorance, sin, and punishment, or to point out that all the three persons are mutually in each other.”9 In other words, he believes that this act simultaneously expresses and praises perichoresis, simply because the triple invocation of mercy from each person of the Trinity expresses awareness that all the three persons are present in each other. Therefore, it is understandable why his explanation is translated into English as: “to express the circuminsession of all the Divine Persons.”10 But how does the Medieval philosopher and theologian understand this perichoresis? This can be best seen in one section of his Summa where he, in his known style, takes up the question “Whether the Son is in the Father, and conversely?,” and then, referring to the words already mentioned above, i.e., Ego in Patre, et Pater in me est, goes on to say: I respond by saying that, regarding the Father and the Son, three points are to be considered, namely the essence, the relation, and the origin; and by each of them the Father is in the Son and conversely.